Angelo defends his conviction and execution of Claudio in Act 2 in the face of Escalus' protests that he himself might one day find himself in the same situation. He argues that
I do not deny
The jury passing on the prisoner's life
May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two
Guiltier than him they try. . . . [But]
You may not so extenuate his offense
For I have had such faults; but rather tell me,
When I that censure him do so offend,
Let mine own judgment pattern out my death,
And nothing come in partial (2.1.19-21;29-33).
In this speech he argues that empathy has no place in jurisprudence and that a judge's own vice and guilt should play no role in her rulings. Yet, is this ideal of consistency too difficult to achieve? Isn't this a recipe for hypocrisy? After all, even the virtuous Angelo (his name suggests virtuous perfection) fails to live up to his own strict standards. Yet, on the other hand, when his crime (the very same act of fornication he convicts Claudio of committing) he clings to his ideal of consistency and retribution: "But let my trial be mine own confession./ Immediate sentence then and sequent death / Is all the grace I beg." (5.1.418-20).
What is this play telling us about such things as hypocrisy and consistency?
In Measure for Measure, Shakespeare tells us that strict standards can be effective, but almost always lead to hypocrisy, as it is almost impossible to follow one’s own rules, if they are too hard for anyone else to follow as well. He shows this through Angelo’s committing of Claudio to prison on the basis of fornication, a crime which he enforces by demanding the death penalty for Angelo. He explains later to Pompey that if he should be caught ever breaking the law; he would want a harsh sentence as well, as that would only be fair. He says this however, without thinking that the situation would ever arise. Unfortunately, a little bit later, Angelo’s moral compass lapses, and he tries to manipulate Isabella into sleeping with him. This directly violates his claim that he would never commit such a crime, and if he did, he should be killed. This action shows how Shakespeare wants us to see that power corrupts, and it is very likely that someone in a position of power will end up breaking their own rules. However, towards the end of the play, Angelo tries to play off that he has done nothing wrong, assuming that the Duke does not know either. He does this by stating that a third party trying to take him down has set up his accusers. This plan backfires on him when the Duke reveals that he knows the extent of Angelo’s crime. In the end however, Angelo shows a bit of remorse, proving that consistency does prevail, when he wishes to be killed, because he realizes the hypocrisy of his ways and wants to feel the same fate as Claudio, the man he condemned.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, he conveys through the story that harsh rules and debatably arbitrary laws often lead to hypocrisy. As brought up throughout the play, the anti-fornication law is broken very frequently, demonstrating that a very few people actually have respect for it. The law, which is founded on the idea of trying to instill morality and ethics into the citizens by suppressing human desires, is not actually effective and does not really protect people from an issue. Moreover, hypocrisy is much more likely to sprout from such unnecessary statutes. When Angelo finds himself conflicted between abiding by these strict laws and following what naturally feels right, he chooses the latter, thus, defying not only the law, but his integrity too. After coercing a lady to have sex with him, he even goes back on the promise he made to her, which he used as leverage to sleep with her in the first place. Considering his name is Angelo, which translates to “Angel,” Shakespeare aims to portray this character as the poster-boy for morality and ethics. Despite this, he indulges in fornication through the influence of his power, breaks his promise to save Claudio, and even takes it one step further by lying about the crime to the Duke and questioning Isabella’s integrity in an attempt to evade punishment. Although he does accept his punishment once he is caught, his initial intentions and plans were to break the law and not serve the time: quite the opposite of what he had been preaching when in power. Ultimately, Shakespeare uses this rather arbitrary law about fornication to convince the audience that overly harsh rules often lead to hypocrisy. Furthermore, he tells of how even the men of finest character and virtue have downfalls and that consistency is an unachievable ideal, especially in the case of controversial rules.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s play, Measure for Measure, he tells readers that strict rules and subjective laws will result in hypocrisy. Throughout the play, a law regarding fornication is broken with multiple convicts, showing that a little amount of characters in the play follow the law. The Anti-fornication law is ideally created made to bring a sense morality and ethics to the citizens of Vienna. However, suppressing human desires is not particularly effective and is repeatedly unfollowed. Furthermore, a hypocrisy from officials is found as they also break the law. For example, Angelo finds himself conflicted between abiding his strict law or following his human desires, he falls to human desires, breaking his law and jeopardizing his integrity as well. After Angelo blackmailed Isabella to have sex with him, he does not follow the deal they have made, which is showing mercy to Claudio. Angelo used saving her brother as leverage to bribe Isabella to sleep with him. This is considerably ironic as Angelo, translates to “Angel,” and Shakespeare brilliantly uses Angelo’s name and character to juxtapose his traits. Angelo is second-in-command to Duke Vincentio and if the Duke had not been disguised as a friar, it is likely Angelo would have gotten away with fornication due to his political standing. Ultimately, Angelo is caught and accepts his punishment showing he is a consistent judge. In conclusion, Shakespeare exemplifies how subjective laws lead to hypocrisy, writing of how even men of the highest character and virtue can fail and that consistency is a hard to meet.
ReplyDeleteIn Williams Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure Angelo’s character and disposition could certainly be shown in the light of hypocrisy. I do indeed agree that power can easily lead to hypocrisy and corruption. Angelo on many occasions gives us reason to believe this. This hypocrisy in this play seems to come hand in hand with fornication, an act that numerous characters take part in throughout the play. What makes Angelo’s case special is his prior outlook on the law and its consequences. Angelo earlier in the play convicts Claudio for fornication and without remorse gives the death sentence to him despite the fact that the law is commonly broken. However, what is startling is the fact that as judge, Angelo shows no feeling and almost judges as if human nature does not exist. Angelo would then fall victim to that same human nature he earlier denied, introducing the hypocrisy in his actions and judgements. However what is more hypocritical is that Angelo falls to this human nature in a further extent that he also feels the need to blackmail Isabel in order to have sex with her. In this way he actually fall victim to his human nature more so than Claudio did. This implies that in the seat of power, Angelo excused himself from these strict laws and allowed himself to follow his human nature. In this degree I do believe that judging without human nature in account and one’s personal feeling is a recipe for hypocrisy. This mixed with his seat of power is the foundation of corruption.
ReplyDeleteIn Measure for Measure, Shakespeare tells us that strict laws and rulings only end up leading us to hypocritical behavior. The anti-fornication law is broken many times throughout the play by commoners, officials, and even by Angelo himself. No one has any regard for this law. By enforcing the strictest of punishments for Claudio’s case, the death penalty, Angelo was putting forth this example that this is what will happen if you break the law. Angelo does not care about human nature or desire, yet that is the reason that he, himself, disregards the law as well. Angelo falls victim to human desire when he tries to blackmail and trick Isabella into sleeping with him. Not only does Angelo break the law, but falls victim to being hypocritical of all he stands for. Shakespeare’s usage of irony is present by making Angelo, whose name translates to angel, make some immoral decisions. In the end, Angelo is caught and accepts his punishment. He shows remorse and consistency as he agrees he should be killed as that is the punishment he gave Claudio. He realizes how his actions were hypocritical of the way he treated Claudio and thus wants the same fate he gave to him. Ultimately, Shakespeare uses these trials to show that the stricter the law the higher the chances that they’ll lead to hypocrisy. He also uses these examples to show that even people of power can make mistakes and that consistency isn’t always possible, especially in the strictest of laws.
ReplyDeleteIn William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, he shows the reader the importance of having a judge that determines a sentence based off each particular case. Angelo tries to create a completely consistent form of punishment when it comes to the criminal justice system in Vienna, but this ends up leading to hypocrisy. For example, Angelo sentences Claudio to death for fornication when he himself is guilty of this same crime. This does not only make Angelo a hypocritical leader but also takes the 'justice' out of the whole criminal justice system by implying that the law does not apply to those enforcing it. When Angelo says "Let mine own judgment pattern out my death, And nothing come in partial", he claims that a Judge's own personal sins should have no effect in their rulings, and that having empathy in a decision of justice will lead to a collapse of ethical decisions and will ruin the politically correct standards of punishment (2.1, 29-33). However, by these standards, a judge must have not made any prior mistakes and must be completely and seemingly impossibly virtuous. Since apparently angelic Angelo cannot live up to his own expectations and moral compass of judicial prosecution, he self-inflicted hypocrisy upon himself. The law must apply to everyone not only the select few. By Angelo excluding himself from the restrictions of the law (which he set himself), it shows that a leader must not be hypocritical and follow the same guidelines as everyone else. If the ruler does not follow those same laws, common people in society will lose their trust and faith in the criminal justice system and eventually the government. With this loss of faith, anarchy and chaos can and most likely will ensure, leaving for many more difficult issues to be unraveled. This play teaches the reader in order to receive fair sentencing, a judge must be understanding and compassionate and must make judicial decisions based upon each individual case and what will be the best outcome for the criminal and the society that they will be entering/exiting.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure teaches us that even the strictest people can fall prey to their own rules and standards, because not everybody can be perfectly impartial. Angelo is the best example of this, for he enforces the rules of Vienna but does not follow them. Angelo’s perfect ideal world where people follow the laws word for word cannot exist, because the predecessor, the Duke, was too lenient with his rules. It isn’t possible that such a dramatic change in power can be expected to go so easily, which is why there was trouble stirring. Angelo’s hypocrisy rooted from the fact that Vienna didn’t enforce their laws, and it could be argued that he didn’t follow the law because there was such a precedent for not following the laws. It’s like peer pressure: if everyone were to jump off a bridge, the expectation is that you will too. In this case, if everyone were to break the law consistently, then it would set an example for everyone, including those who enforce those laws. If there isn’t anyone to enforce the law, who will? While Angelo’s strict logic isn’t applicable in Vienna because he would have kept breaking the rules and nobody would be there to stop him. Had the Duke not come and stopped Angelo there wouldn’t be any resolution to the story. Measure for Measure shows us that because of this peer pressure and the events that occurred before Angelo replaced the Duke, everyone can be subject to hypocrisy and as a result can make inconsistencies in important parts of life like the criminal justice system.
ReplyDeleteMeasure for Measure offers a very bleak commentary on hypocrisy and consistency, positing that we are unable to be consistent in our rulings without being hypocritical because there is a self-preservation instinct in every one of us, even if we are unempathetic and “impartial.” The prime example of this is Angelo’s eventual trial when the Duke returns. Even as he eventually begs for death because it is the just punishment for his crime, initially he doesn’t even acknowledge it happens. When Isabella confronts Angelo and the Duke when the Duke returns, accusing Angelo of fornication, he dismisses her claims as delusional. If he were to judge completely impartially, he should have admitted his fault then and there, however he denies because he doesn’t want to die.
ReplyDeleteThis self-preservation manifests itself again when Angelo is eventually pardoned, as the Duke notices a “quick’ning in his eye” (5.1.567) just before he announces that Angelo will not be put to death. This is the same thing that many criminals did when publicly executed. Their eyes were wild, darting around quickly, looking for a way out. When Angelo sees hope of redemption, his self-preservation instinct again kicks in, and I think that Shakespeare is alluding to the desperate search for salvation with this line. Even when judging others impartially, it is impossible to judge ourselves in the same manner. We have a biological impulse to save our own skins, even when we know we are guilty. This is why empathy has to play a role in judgment. Because judgment solely based on the black and white of a crime will result in an unfair personal self-preservation instinct, we have to extend that same “self-preservation” to others, and put ourselves in their shoes, so that we can judge fairly and more consistently.
I believe that there are always exceptions to laws, and that no set of laws can encompass and support all good behavior. This is because life is complicated and situations are complicated. As a result, these situations cannot be judged with black and white laws. William Shakespeare expresses this idea in his play Measure for Measure through Angelo’s judgments as a temporary duke. When Angelo attempts to use the law and consistency to judge multiple cases like Claudio’s and himself, it leads to unjust rulings such as the death of Claudio (2.1.19-33). I believe many would agree that Claudio had no harmful intent and should not be ruled to death, however Angelo justifies himself by saying he would do the same is he were in his place. This shows that Angelo’s rule is dependent on consistency of laws, and that his ruling is dependent that the law is good. Shakespeare then uses a new situation where Angelo attempts to sleep with Isabel outside of marriage to explain how strict consistency of the law leads to hypocrisy (2.4.95-105). Not only did Angelo have harmful intent, but also committed the same crime as Claudio. As a result, it is simple to conclude that Angelo should also be put to death. However, Angelo does not put himself to death after he sleeps with whom he believes is Isabel, but instead carries out his previous ruling to kill Claudio the next day (4.2.7-14). This reveals Angelo’s hypocrisy to an extreme level to show that if situations are treated as black and white for consistency, than it leads to hypocrisy and injustice. While this situation is more obvious, it can be applied to all laws and situations. The goal of laws are for the betterment of the people under those laws. However, for every law there are exceptions. This play suggests that when those exceptions arise, they should not be ignored to sustain consistency, but that the consistency should be in evaluating each and every case as its own. If not, then laws will be unable to support all good behavior. This can also be taken in a biblical sense. Before Jesus can down to earth, many religious leaders had followed the 10 commandments strictly. One of which was to not work on Sundays, as it was supposed to be reserved as a holy day. However even Jesus broke this law, not to do harm, but to do good. This is just one example where consistency of the law does not mean rulings are just or good.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure, he tries to tell us that holding the law to strict standards might not be as efficient as it seems on paper. It might led people, like judges, to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is very evident in both of Angelo’s trails in Measure for Measure, both when he tries Claudio for fornication and when he himself is tried for the very same crime. Angelo holds the same strict and consistent law throughout the play and does not look at any of the circumstances around the crime. There is no proportionality of crime and punishment in his judicial decision-making; in his eyes, every crime has the same exact punishment. In my opinion, the modern day justice system should not look like this; every crime should be looked at in context and evaluated knowing that there might be extenuating circumstances. Angelo was almost married to Juliet and should have had a lesser sentence. He even finds it fair if he commits a crime of a grand scale, or one similar to Claudio’s, that “[his] own judgment [can] pattern out [his] death, And nothing come in partial” (2.1.32-33). However, he puts himself into a situation similar to Claudio’s, by fornicating with Claudio’s sister nonetheless. He breaks him own moral compass and his own word, knowing that if he is caught that he will face death according to him own law. I think this case becomes a little more hypocritical when the Duke lets Angelo live after he is convicted of fornication with Mariana. Instead of insisting his own laws and putting himself to death, he lets himself live thereby disregarding his own law. By the end of the play, the readers can see that, in theory, following the same strict law for every crime might seem ideal. However, when it is put into play in the justice system the flaws of the empathy-less law appear. There will always be biases for every crime--even in a perfect world-- and even people with a virtuous perfection can’t live up to their own standards.
ReplyDeleteAlthough overly strict laws can lead to hypocrisy and inconsistency, the core of the problem stems from the legitimacy of the law itself. Laws that are created and enforced to the extremes often results in hypocrisy. When the Duke leaves in the beginning of the play he tells, “Your scope is as mine own, so to enforce or qualify the law as to your soul seems good”(1.1 70-71). At the start of the play, we hear from Angelo that the Duke’s laws are too lenient and often people ignore it. When the Duke leaves, he gave Angelo two choices, either to be merciful or strict. What the Duke does not offer is a medium that tells Angelo to be in the middle and give judgment based on context. Later we learn that being too lenient often creates inconsistence in the decisions, but being too strict leads to hypocrisy. Both of these erodes the legitimacy of the law itself. Being too lenient creates the condition that Angelo describes where citizens treats the law as a recommendation. However, being too strict achieves the same thing. When Angelo is convicted guilty of the same crime he charged Claudio, he destroyed the legitimacy of the objective system. People will view the law as phony since those who are arbiters are committing the same crime. Angelo supports this claim by saying “from thee even from thy virtue the tempter or the tempted…that modesty may more betray our sense…when judges steals themselves” (2.2 200-220). Angelo says that because everyone has their own desires, having overly strict law makes people think they are excessive and illogical. Those at the top will give unjust punishment until they are the one who is being punishment. The only way to change this is to enforce laws in a way that punishes criminals but is just for those who only have minor offenses. When these two goals are achieved, the room for hypocrisy will go down, and punishment will delivered more consistently.
ReplyDeleteI think Measure for Measure is telling us that we should not appreciate hypocrisy within the law, yet we should also not demand absolute consistency when serving justice to persons committing the same crime. The play argues against hypocrisy by invoking Angelo as the antagonist who abuses his position of power. When Angelo blackmails Isabella to free her brother she questions why he would commit the same crime that for which he is executing Claudio. Later, the Duke then sentences Angelo to execution, the same fate as Claudio, only pardoning him once the provost reveals that Claudio is alive. Through this, we can see that the kind of hypocrisy that we should not tolerate the kind of hypocrisy that Angelo practices. People who commit the same crime should have to face similar consequences. However, the play also argues that judges should take the circumstances and situation in which the crime is committed into account when determining the sentence or punishment. We see this in the punishments of Angelo, Claudio, and Lucio, all of whom the Duke finds to be guilty of fornication. The Duke sentences (“sentences”) all of them to marry the woman with whom they had sex. This is where we find partial consistency within the law; they all committed the same and should have to serve some form of similar punishment. Afterwards, the Duke sentences Lucio only to a whipping. This is where circumstances come into play and where absolute consistency would fail. Claudio and Angelo were each going to marry Juliet and Mariana, respectively, before the events of the play. Their sexual relations were much less extramarital relative to Lucio, who had sex with a prostitute. Because only Lucio committed a relatively extreme form of fornication, he is the only one given a harsher punishment. Measure for Measure does not support hypocrisy, yet it still believe in weighing the circumstances of the case.
ReplyDeleteIn Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, Shakespeare shows us the paradoxical and hypocritical nature of the legal system. Angelo immediately begins his speech with a contradiction. He says that it is entirely possible for the convened jury to have committed crimes worse than those accused. Although sometimes this is the case in the modern courtroom, it shows the paradoxical nature of the legal system. A jury ruling on crimes they very well could have committed themselves. As for the idea that empathy should not be taken into account, Angelo argues that it is not that it can’t be, it’s that it shouldn’t be. He feels very strongly that empathy should play a minimal, if non-existent, role in jurying. However, empathy can often be the saving grace of a legal system. Two cases are never the same, and applying the same law and punishment to them would be ruining the purpose of the legal system; to help rehabilitate the person. Ironically, Angelo also attempts to sleep with Isabella in the play. According to his statement, he should be executed, but ask him again once sentencing him, and he would most likely disagree with his earlier statement. Another important aspect of the legal system Angelo advocates for is consistency. Hypocritically, if this consistency was actually followed, Angelo would lose his power. In the end, Shakespeare tells the readers that in Vienna, hypocrisy arose because of a lack of empathy in the legal system, and that consistency could be the key to stopping hypocrisy, if and only if implemented effectively.
ReplyDeleteIn this speech, Angelo is telling Escalus that nothing is ever truly just or fair due to humans' animalistic nature. The line " 'Tis one thing to be tempted…Another thing to fall" (39.2.1,18-9) is Angelo's view on how society determines who is worthy of judging others. However, in a group of people, all may seem worthy of judging another based off of what is on their record but, many things go unseen. Most of the time, what people know about us is only the information we want them to know. Unless someone observes something that we do not intend for them to see. Even in those cases, depending on who saw the crime being committed and who committed the crime, social reputation is a major factor in determining if someone should be put on trial or even questioned. In instances where there is a case that goes to court, not all people who are in the jury are worthy of judging the presumed criminal due to that person’s own malfeasance. Sometimes, juries can contain people who have committed the same crime but have not been caught. This adds an underlying hypocritical and somewhat dishonest aspect to the ruling. Though, we do not always see what is hiding within a person.
ReplyDelete"The jewel that we find, we stoop and take't
Because we see it; but what we do not see
We tread upon, and never think of it" (40.2.1, 26-8).
People tend to only look at what is most visible. We have a hard time thinking about what lies underneath the surface layer and fail to take the time to look at layers that are harder to see. Angelo even admits he has done some unjust things, but his actions are hidden from the majority of society due to his standing reputation of being an angel. His malfeasance is hard for those of the public to believe until the Duke testifies against him putting him in a powerless position.